monitorar_processo

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that this is a polling implementation with no real-time guarantee and that a push notification phase is planned. However, it does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or an explicit read-only guarantee.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main behavior and followed by a concise implementation note. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple check-oriented tool with fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could be stronger on when to use alternatives and edge-case behavior, but the core invocation context, including the polling/no-real-time caveat, is covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters, including ISO format and CNJ format requirements. The description adds little beyond the phrase 'após a data informada', but the schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action and resource: it checks whether a process had an update after a given date. This is specific enough to understand the core function, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as executar_monitoramento_em_lote or listar_movimentacoes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: call this tool to determine whether a process was updated after a date. The mention of polling via DataJud without real-time capability is useful context, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer alternatives like executar_monitoramento_em_lote or listar_movimentacoes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.